News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Kavanaugh

some continuity of design.  Is it possible to give a player who misses every green a different type of chip shot.  If so, please give an example of how or what course may this be.


Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Just how much variety can a set of greens have and still provide...
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2007, 10:35:38 PM »
Do you mean missing on the wrong side of the green or missing short right every time?

When are you coming to Houston?
By my count there are an awful lot of options and many different proper misses.

Cheers


Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Just how much variety can a set of greens have and still provide...
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2007, 10:40:33 PM »
33.7 degrees of variety...

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Just how much variety can a set of greens have and still provide...
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2007, 10:43:57 PM »
some continuity of design.  Is it possible to give a player who misses every green a different type of chip shot.  If so, please give an example of how or what course may this be.



John

I'm not sure if I know 18 different chip shots but #2 provides quite challenge and has the continuity - I was never bored...

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Just how much variety can a set of greens have and still provide...
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2007, 11:02:18 PM »
JK,

I tried to read through the issues on the other thread in an effort to better understand your question...I still don't think I do.

But, I'll give it a shot.

Let's say we have a green surface that is mild in contour and overall shape. If we lay that at grade, that will produce a certain number of ways to recover from a miss approached. Now, if we raise that same surface several feet, the shot options change. Or, surround the same green surface with slopes elevated above the green, the shot options are certainly different again. Throw elevated bunkers in the mix, and you have yet another variation on recovery.

I would say that how the set of greens is situated, or implemented, sited, etc. is as important to variety as the contour and shape of the green itself.

Is that what you're talking about?

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Just how much variety can a set of greens have and still provide...
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2007, 08:19:35 AM »
John,

Based on what I see, apparently every green needs to have bunker left-bunker right for perfect design continuity......Seriously, this is one of my pet topics, and a good one.

There is the theory that gently rolling greens always provide variety of chip shots when missed in different locations.  I think that's a good default, but the gca should strive for the most variety possible.  For a golfer at a club, or regular course, I believe that the variety should lead, over the course of the many playings of the season, to the widest variety of interesting shots.

I am of the belief that far more courses (on a ratio of perhaps 500 to 1) have greens that are too similar than greens that are too diverse. With the exception of a course that has had just a few greens done, and done by a gca with no thought as to being sympathetic to what was there originally, it just doesn't happen, IMHO.  

 
It may be because gca's are human, and humans are creatures of habit, always brushing their teeth before shaving, or eating meat loaf on Tuesdays, or whatever.  Are we to believe that this very human trait doesn't creep into design?

That is why there is a place for template greens, or at least pet pre-concieved concepts in the gca palette.  When Raynor started a design know there would be a Redan hole, a Biarritz, etc. he had a better shot of gaining 18 individual greens than another gca who thought he would "see what develops."  And, even then, he would have been better, had he developed, say 50 templates rather than 19.  Plus, his (or any gca's stylistic tendencies tie the greens together, perhaps even too much, and over the course of a career, he got repetitive.

That's why I have started to develop a pet list of features to incorporate in greens, if not necessarily in the exact same green every time.  That list includes things like:

Approach type (from narrow or even cut off to wide and rolling),

Green elevation (from below natural grade to well above it)

Hazards (including number of sand bunkers from 0-12, and other hazards, like trees guarding the green (but only on the west side to allow morning sun!) chocolate drop mounds, grass bunkers (damn, those need a catch basin......)

Backdrop (natural trees, skyline greens, set below natural or built ridges)

Chipping Areas - by location, elevation relative to green, width, shape (simple vs complex)

Green Size and Shape (going for at least one postage stamp and one ultra huge) and from simple to extravagent, including "r" and "L" shaped greens, etc.  I break size down by hole type, so that, for example, one long par 4 requires a shot to a tiny green, some to medium, and some to large, rather than follow the tired formula of "long shot-big green"

Green Contour - planning some at 1.5% and others at 3% general slope, including at least a few that roll either away or to the side on a plane, rather than in swales, so that golfers can never assume that the putt will break in any constant fashion.

Green Concept - whether two tiers, three tiers, biaritz, etc., I plan a nice balance of green concepts from the approach aspect.

Well, you get the idea.  Being that creature of habit that we all are, I find that when I get to the end of my first run of feature designs, I have relied on one feature too much, and its a simple matter to check the list and make a few tweaks to the greens that aren't working as well, perhaps substituting chocolate drop mounds for a bunker, etc. to get more variety.

Now, this group is probably choking on their Cheerios to read this, and because my name isn't Doak, will probably want to reenact the Salem Witch trials .......probably believing that every C&C green is a gift from God, does nothing but follow natural contours, etc.  Simply isn't true - greens are built!  They take their cues, even as above, from the natural contours, but they are built (and then maintained) by the hand of man!

Golfers seem to like my courses, and since I have started designing this way, the magazines have given more acclaim for my designs than previously, so the idea must work to some degree, and I think I will stick with it for a while.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Just how much variety can a set of greens have and still provide...
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2007, 11:48:05 AM »
JK,

I tried to read through the issues on the other thread in an effort to better understand your question...I still don't think I do.

But, I'll give it a shot.

Let's say we have a green surface that is mild in contour and overall shape. If we lay that at grade, that will produce a certain number of ways to recover from a miss approached. Now, if we raise that same surface several feet, the shot options change. Or, surround the same green surface with slopes elevated above the green, the shot options are certainly different again. Throw elevated bunkers in the mix, and you have yet another variation on recovery.

I would say that how the set of greens is situated, or implemented, sited, etc. is as important to variety as the contour and shape of the green itself.

Is that what you're talking about?

Joe

Joe,

I reread your post, and you make some excellent points.  See my post above, and you will note that varying green height above the fw is one of my criteria.  

Wouldn't most golfers think that raising the green tends to limit options to the flop?  Generally, I think the lower the green, the more the option to bump and run.  There are exceptions, of course.

Not sure what you mean by "elevated bunkers" however.  Deeper, or set well above the green, or both?

I gather that if we vary all the factors often enough, eventually, we will force some variety in recovery shots.  That is a hard theory to test however, because I am not going to follow every member around for each round to chart that variety! ;)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach